Give an example.
What about when "absolute, indisputable evidence" is not obtainable? Can a conviction still be made without it?
A woman is taking a stroll through a forest alone. A man assaults her, rapes her, and then leaves her for dead. She never got a clear look at his face, and he wore a condom. She's discovered barely alive by someone else within a short period of time. She files a police report, and an investigation is done, but because she lacks "absolute, indisputable evidence," her case is eventually dropped, and the man is never found, and he eventually rapes more women.
A woman is taking a stroll through a forest alone. A man assaults her, rapes her, and then leaves her for dead. She never got a clear look at his face, and he wore a condom. She's discovered barely alive by someone else within a short period of time. She files a police report, and an investigation is done. Thankfully, with a standard of "two or three witnesses," there's just enough evidence to find the rapist, arrest him, and convict him, and the judge sentences him to an immediate execution.
Arthur, your standard is too high, and would result in more innocent people to be harmed or killed, and fewer criminals being caught and punished.
Scripture is given by God for doctrine, reproof, and correction. Why do you disagree with scripture simply because of when it was written?
But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ - Matthew 18:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:16&version=NKJV
Even Jesus affirmed the standard of "two or three witnesses." He did not require "absolute, indisputable evidence."
Moral standards don't change over time, Arty, that's how we know they're objective.
It does. That's WHY God said, "two OR three witnesses."
It's BECAUSE He expects the judges to judge with discernment. In other words: Some cases will require only two witnesses. Other cases will require three. No case can be decided on the testimony of only one witness.
Take my example above, but instead of it being in modern times, consider the same situation in ancient times.
The woman is out collecting herbs or berries, and she's assaulted by a man whose face she doesn't get a clear look at. In her struggle with him, she manages to scratch his face, and even manages to tear a piece of his robe off, which she clings to. She goes to a judge, and tells him that she was assaulted, and presents the torn piece of robe as a second witness. But she coud have just torn her own robe up and be making a false accusation, the judge points out. She responds by telling him that she scratched her attacker's face badly, and shows the blood under her fingernails to the judge, a third witness. The judge commands that any men with even somewhat fresh scratches be brought before him. A few men are brought before him and the woman all with scratches on their face, all of them deny raping the woman, but one of the men's faces looks like it was scratched by a human hand, the corollary to the third witness, so the judge demands him to bring all of his robes for inspection, and for his home to be searched. A torn robe is found, and the piece of robe that the woman tore off is matched to it, the fourth witness.
And yet, as demonstrated above, "two or three witnesses" is a perfect standard, because it still works with or without modern technology.
You're missing the point of contention, or worse, moving the goalposts.
No one is arguing that we shouldn't use modern evidence gathering techniques, nor is that what we've been discussing.
In fact, Christians (at least, those who were close to Bob Enyart) have been advocating for a nation-wide DNA database, so that matching crimes to criminals becomes much easier, and could be used as one more witness against them, a secondary deterrent.
Regardless, that's a totally different matter than whether "two or three witnesses" is a valid standard for a judgement to be made regarding a crime.